Like many of this site's readers, I've been totally preoccupied by the debate surrounding health care reform over the past few months, and increasingly disappointed that we'll really get anything near the type of reform we, as a country, need.  While recently twiddling my thumbs and bemoaning the fact that the single payer idea has gotten no attention whatsoever, however, I stumbled upon an idea that seemed like a good reason why the right might actually support a single payer system (yeah right, keep dreaming).

Anyway it goes like this:  I'm a lawyer by trade, and have worked in the past in the personal injury defense field, and have more recently dabbled in medical malpractice (plaintiff side).  I do mostly commercial and business litigation, but sometimes, my firm's business clients have other legal needs where we can be of assitance, but I digress.  In the personal injury and medical malpractice fields, damage awards generally consist of economic and non-economic damages.  Typically, although not always, the largest component of an economic damages award are the past and future medical bills (whether paid for by insurance or not, as insurers usually have lien rights against any recovery).  These "hard and fast" numbers are often what set the expectations of total recovery or exposure in a case.  For example, a small accident where one goes to a doctor once and then just deals with the pain for a short period, and incurs only $200 in medical bills, just will not settle for more than a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, dollars.  The same accident, however, accompanied by a course of treatment with a chiropractor for 5-6 weeks and resulting in bills of $5,000 is far more likely to settle for $10,000 - $15,000.  None of this is set in stone, mind you, but insurance adjusters, at least for the most part, view their world this way.

What would happen if all these bills were paid through a sungle payer health care system?  In other words, if you never got a bill and never knew or cared how much the care in question cost you, how would you be able to include it as part of a damages calculation?  What would happen in that case is you'd be forced to go to trial seeking wage loss, dimished earning capacity, and pain and suffering only.  A huge component of your case (to which you had no entitlement anyway, but which increased the value of everything else) would be gone.  There'd be no more awards for future medicals, as they'd be borne by the system without recourse.

Now, admittedly, without changes, this would break down a bit when we got to the point of the single "payor" seeking subrogation against the wrongdoer, but my guess is that we could work out a good system to allow this to proceed on a parallel-type track, unencumbered by notions of the victim's responsibility for a medical lien.  

In my opinion, removing what is often the largest element of a PI or medical malpractice case from the equation, and which normally doesn't belong to the injured party anyway, would tend to reduce the settlement and jury verdict value of a number of these cases, and would altogether eliminate those cases where a small settlement would otherwise have been appropriate but for a plainitff's overtreatment for purposes of pumping up value.

Just sayin'.  

I've seen some here at TPM take the recent (10/30) FOX poll as evidence of a possible tightening of the race between Obama and McCain.  For shame!

The most recent FOX/Opinion Dynamics poll showing a three-point race (Obama 47%, McCain 44%) is comprised of respondents who self identified as follows:  Republican - 40% (or 364 of 924); and Democrat - 41% (or 379 of 924).

Compare this to the FOX/Opinion Dynamics poll from about a week ago (10/22), which showed a nine point race (Obama 49%, McCain 40%), and which was comprised of respondents who self identified as follows:  Republican 37% (or 345 of 936); and Democrat - 43% (or 401 of 936). 

Also, note that only 11% of the respondents in the 10/30 poll were newly registered voters (i.e., registered within the last two years), whereas 14% of the respondents for the 10/22 poll were similalry newly registered.

So, FOX creates a poll of individuals evenly split between the Republican party and the Democratic party (which is a party ID not reasonably expected by any self-respecting pollster), and with fewer newly registered voters than its prior polls.  Then, to keep the narrative going, it claims that, surprise, surprise, the race is tightening. 

Why does anyone listen to these folks?  More importantly, why don't y'all at TPM note this when repeating the poll's findings?

This past weekend, as I was trying for the life of me to understand what the heck the McCain camp was thinking in adding Sarah Palin to the ticket as VP, I said to my wife that the more I think about it, the more I have no doubt that no one in the McCain camp intends for her to stay on the ticket very long.  I mean, this person was so extraordinarily unqualified to lead this nation that there had to be another explanation; here's what I came up with:

Last Thursday night, the Democratic convention closed with a very stirring and effective (by almost all accounts) speech by Barack Obama.  Almost everyone (even many Republican commentators) agreed that the Democratic convention had been a great success, and would help launch the Obama/Biden ticket into the general election season with a sizeable head of steam.  What oh what could the McCain camp do?  They had to stem the tide, stop the bleeding, nip the Obama surge in the bud . . . but how?

Sure, McCain picking Lieberman, Pawlenty, Ridge, or Romney as VP the morning after Obama's speech might help, but really, would any of those picks have had the impact in terms of dominating the news cycle that the Palin pick has??  At the end of the day, they needed to change the narrative; they needed this pick.  And, so it was.

Palin has since come under great scrutiny for many reasons, any one of which may -- and probably will, IMHO -- result in her eventually withdrawing from the race, citing the vindictiveness of the press (and, by extension, the awful, angry left), and the need to protect her family from the vitriole.  Something along the lines of "I could not have anticipated the level of scrutiny, anger, and even apparent hatred that would have come my -- and more importantly my family's -- way when I accepted the nomination to serve as the great McCain's second-in-command, and therefore decided that it would be best for me -- and again more importantly, my family -- for me top step down as John McCain's running mate."

Palin would then step down, changing the focus of the pick from the many faults of Palin and McCain's awful judgment, to the press', and the "angry left's" single-minded hatred of anything conservative or Republican.  All this would serve to dull the post-convention bounce for Obama/Biden, help further the Republican narrative about the liberal media and the hound dog press, allow McCain to appear like he cares about issues of importance to women, and yet leave him free to select one of the aformentioned white men as his "real" running mate.

All this is just a theory that helped me explain WTF McCain was thinking when he picked Palin (whose cons on virtually every subject outweighed whatever pros he might have been hoping she'd bring to the table).  With Schmidt's increasingly absurd claims about the media in recent days, I am beginning to think I was right.  I personally put nothing past these people.

I figured that would get your attention.

In reality, like most of America, I have no idea who Hillary Clinton's preacher/pastor/minister is, nor do I know or care what he or she might have said.  That, however, is the point of this post.

I've been thinking about all this Wright stuff over the past couple of days, and I keep coming back to the same thing:  where did it all start and why?  I mean, someone must have been perusing YouTube or simply investigating Barack Obama's church for evidence of something for this whole thing to have ever surfaced in the first place, right?  I mean, stuff like this doesn't just happen by coincidence.  The question that bugs me though, is why?  What was/is it about Barack Obama's church that made it worth "investigating" for such policitcal purposes?

We don't have to go far to find a conservative "sprirtual leader" spouting off some bat-shit crazy theories of God and the workings of our world, but hey, that's par for their course.  What is it about this particular man that made someone feel justified in exploiting his more intemperate (and yes, at times arguably kinda bat-shit crazy) moments for Hillary's political gain?  The answer, in my humble opinion, is that he is black, and "black + scary = white flight."

Crazy shit spewing from the mouths of white preachers and priests is, well, ok because that's "normal," and you know, they're not all that scary.  On the other hand, fiery rhetoric (even if accurately describing the human condition, which at times, Wright's was/is) from the mouth of a black preacher?!?  Well Christ on a cracker that scares the crap out of me!!!  Everyone in that church must feel the same way, and my once-secure-future in this country, as a white man, is in danger! 

The people behind this whole episode and those who exploited it for political gain (nod, wink, nudge, nudge HRC) deserve nothing but the country's derision.  They hide behind the idea that it would have been brought up by the McCain campaign in the general, and maybe that's true, maybe it's not.  But what's certain is that they took this situation and put it out there, and they repeatedly fanned the flames for weeks on end, knowing full well what they were doing, and the destructive ends they were trying to achieve (make no mistake, virtually everyone who ever thought Wright was appropriate fodder did so because they knew that the racial over- and undertones would work to HRC's advantage).  Having done so, like a terrorist who just detonated a bomb in the market square, the gardeners who sowed this seed of racial division now try to walk away and "rise above it," saying "move on, nothing to see here."  Well, I for one will not forget.

I suggest that everyone who reads this post make a solemn commitment to ask, every time he or she hears anyone talking about Wright, "what did Hillary's preacher say?" and leave it at that.  Hopefully, this single question will bring those folks back around to recognizing what's important and why.

I've written tirades similar to this before, and every time I consider doing it again, I say "why bother, there's nothing left to say."  But alas, I can stand it no more.  My pressure cooker of a head is about to explode, so spout off I must.

Why is Hillary even being taken seriously anymore?  Her consistent moving the goalposts, her near constant mendacity and patronizing demeanor, her arguments about seating the Michigan and Florida delegates, and now her newfound claim to be leading in the popular vote are, quite literally, laughable and not even worth reporting.  In fact, the most recent of these (i.e., the popular vote boondoggle) should be reported, if at all, only for its comical value.

Essentially, the argument now is that more people have voted for Hillary than anyone else . . . a statement that while arguably technically accurate (i.e., where individuals have actually cast ballots for named candidates, Hillary has received more votes than anyone else), is actually meant to convey a highly inaccurate and misleading message; to wit: that to date this primary season, and considering all fair and legitimate contests, more voters have preferred Hillary to Barack.  That claim is demonstrably false and completely falls apart when you realize that the Clinton campaign is not counting any states where the voters' preferences were expressed in caucuses (Iowa, Nevada, Maine, Washington, and to some degree, Texas), but is counting those where Barack's name was not even on the ballot, in keeping with the Democratic party's position (Michigan), or where the candidates agreed not to campaign, again in keeping with the DNC's position (an agreement not kept in spirit by Hillary, see this article from The Nation for more).

This is as comical as one NFL team saying at the close of the regular season that it should be the division champion because it actually had more wins and a better winning percentage than the first place team . . . if you count the preseason.  Comical or not, however, this claim is certainly shameful.  It is made with the intention that it be blasted around the media, hopefully to filter down to the electorate unchallenged, and to germinate in the minds of millions of "low information" voters.  But, in the end, it is false and knowingly so.  

At this point, most of us know (or should know) that Hillary cannot win the battle for pledged delegates, and will likely never come close to winning the popular vote (which matters why, exactly?).  According to Slate.com's delegate calculator, if Hillary was to win every single remaining contest by a 60/40 margin, she would remain 68 pledged delegates behind Barack.  According to Real Clear Politics, Barack currently enjoys a 500,000-600,000-vote lead in the popular vote in states that count (a largley insurmountable lead considering the size of the remaining states with contests).  As such, Hillary's only hope is to win every last remaining state by heretofore unobtianable (by her, at least) margins, and convince at least 61% of the remaining 304 uncommitted superdelegates to ignore Barack's pledged delegate and pouplar vote advantages, and jump on her ship.  Personally, I cannot imagine a more destructive path to the nomination, or of any way more calculated to losing the general election.

This is no longer about Hillary in '08.  At this point, the campaign is being driven by Hillary and the rest of the DLC democrats to ensure that Barack emerges from the nominating process so damaged and so reduced in the esteem of the American people, that he loses the general election handily, and they can all claim victory over the progressive/liberal wing of the Democratic Party (e.g., "See what listening to the blogosphere or the traditional base gets you?!").  This is the machine that Barack talks about in his stump speech; this is the machine that until recently, brought us Joe Lieberman (and still, Bayh, Biden, Stabenow, Nelson (both), and Feinstein, among others); and this is the machine that constantly and consistently sells out the traditional base of the Democratic Party (see credit-card friendly Bankruptcy Reform Act).

I for one have had enough.  I am going to start calling and emailing those uncomitted superdelegates who might care what I have to say and tell them to get off the fence, for the good of the party.  And I'm not just going to say get off the fence, I'm going to ask them politely to declare their support for Barack -- even if they may want to wait to see what their constituents say -- because waiting to hear what their constituents might say is something the party cannot afford.  Mind you, I would not even suggest this if Hillary had some reasonable chance of actually securing the nomination through traditional, non-devisive means, but the bottom line is that she doesn't, and I don't even think she's in this anymore for the nomination (at least not this year).  We simply cannot afford to spend the next 3-4 months beating our candidates up and expect either of them to emerge strong enough to win the general election.

This isn't about the "heat of the kitchen" either.  Don't kid yourself, patronize others, or demean me by pretending that it is.  No Democratic candidate should have to defend him or herself against attacks from his or her own party that are of the type normally expected from the Republicans.  This is nonsense, and it has gone on long enough.     

I write this in response to Josh's post "Goodbye cruel Ballot Box."  Count me among the Obama supporters who will not cast a vote for Hillary if she was to somehow accomplish the impossible and become the Democratic nominee in the general election.  However, I disagree with Josh's take on why I -- and several like me -- have vowed never to vote for Hillary.  To me, this is less about policy differences than it is about rewarding bad behavior, or kissing progressive policies goodbye.

I was never much of a fan of Bill Clinton's, even though he was leaps and bounds better than the Republican nominees he faced, and light years better than his successor.  My problem with Bill was that his constant triangulating and generally centrist to right-of-center ideology worked to shift the center of debate unacceptably to "the right," such that once traditionally liberal or progressive ideas became more outside the mainstream (in perception, at least).  His tenure as president, and the resulting alienation of the "left wing" of the Democratic party, was one of many factors that allowed the word "liberal" to become a four letter word in popular jargon.  My main fear in electing Hillary to the same post once occupied by her husband was always that 4 or 8 years of similar politics would so damage the progressive wing of the Deomocratic party that it might never recover (that and the idea of 24-28 years under the "rule" of two families kinda freaked me out).

Despite these feelings, I entered this primary season pretty much resigned that the Democrats would shoot themselves in the foot and nominate Hillary, and that I would still vote for her in the end.  No more.

The level of mendacity displayed by Hillary on a more-or-less regular basis nowadays, and the lengths to which the Clinton campaign, and Hillary herself, have gone to keep this primary process alive have so bothered me that I could never support her run for the presidency.  For example, during the debates, Hillary accused Obama of shirking this responsibility to make tough decisions with his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature, when she knew full well that those votes were the equivalent of a "no" vote in Illinois, and that her intimation to the contrary had been debunked several times by that time.  She knew what she was implying was false, yet she continued on this course, depending essentially on the "low information voter."  (Curiously, no one ever challenged Hillary on what I think was the equivalent of what she was implying Obama did when it came time for her to vote on the Bankruptcy Reform Bill -- I think she abstained from voting altogether).

Prior to really pushing for revotes, Hillary also asserted that both the Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated based on the intitial primaries in those states.  This, to me, was the height of dishonesty and mendacity displayed by here and her campaign, and did not reflect the sort of conduct I expect from a president (current one notwithstanding).

Now, she and her campaign continue to push the nominating process beyond the point where it will do anyone on the left side of the aisle any good.  Using Slate's delgate calculator, I recently experimented with what would happen assuming Hillary totally kicked ass in all of the remaining primaries, including revotes in Florida and Michigan.  Giving her 60%-40% victories in all remaining contests (something I don't think she accomplished in any state yet, even at the zenith of her popularity), including Florida and Michigan, she still fell more than 100 pledged delegates short of Obama's total.  To make up the difference from the 300-400 or so uncommitted superdelegates would require that they choose her roughly 2 or 3:1, and yet this would only happen if something catastrophic happened to Obama and his campaign, or Hillary and her campaign went soooo negative that no one came out looking very good to anyone.  Again, I ask myself, to what end Hillary?  When is it enough?  The elevation of self above all else is not strength; nor is being a "fighter" for the sake of fighting something I value.

Don't get my refusal to vote for Hillary wrong; it does not mean I'll vote for McCain.  Unlike an earlier poster, I could never vote Republican, and doing so could never bring about the politcis and policies I believe in.  Like Hillary on the bankruptcy bill, I'll simply "not vote" for president, but will for other offices.     

On CNN this morning, immediately following a story on Richardson's endorsement and the importance to the Clinton Campaign of the uncommitted superdelegates, CNN "reported" that Hillary seems to be pulling ahead of Obama, citing a two day old Gallup poll (the 49% to 42% one) that has already been superseded by another more recent poll showing the gap narrowing somewhat.

So now I'm just asking:  What legitimate reason is there to "report" on an old Gallup tracking poll just after completing a story on the Richardson endorsement?  Is an old poll that has already been replaced by another identical poll showing some positive movement in Obama's direction news?  Is it even relevant?  I, for one, can't think of a good or acceptable answer here, but I guess it's all of a piece.